STATE RECORDS

Mr MARSHALL (Norwood—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): A supplementary.

The SPEAKER: A further supplementary.

Mr MARSHALL: Further and final, I'm sure, sir. Given the fact that this State Records Act review looked at in excess of 400 agencies, can the Attorney-General provide any explanation to this house why ministerial offices were specifically excluded from this review?

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (14:08): Again, I thank the leader for his question. I do not take issue with it except for the words 'specifically excluded', which actually imply that somebody in executive government or somewhere else had issued a directive that ministerial offices were not to be included. All I can tell the leader and the parliament is this: the most recent information I have about this matter, which as I said was provided in a briefing this morning, is to the effect that they were not included.

Mr Marshall: Why?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As to why, I would have to seek—that is a separate question—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The leader and I and a number of other members of the opposition spent a period of time this morning with Mr Ryan, and I do not recall that specific question having been asked of Mr Ryan. He was there; he was available to answer the question. I have not been asked that particular question before, either, so I am unable to answer that question other than to say that there is no indication from Mr Ryan or anybody else that a member of executive government at any time has issued a direction or any form of guidance to the State Records people that they were to specifically avoid ministerial offices. I confirm again that Mr Ryan's advice—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Heysen is very interested in this, apparently. Mr Ryan's advice this morning was that in the 2010 review there were a number of agencies—and it might assist the parliament to understand that the State Records legislation covers various agencies; not all of them are agencies which are state government agencies. For example, the 68 councils within South Australia are agencies to which the State Records Act applies. The state universities are also agencies to which the State Records Act applies.

So what we know is that in 2010 there was an examination of a range of agencies. We don't know specifically which agencies. I haven't been provided with that information. Nor, should I say, was Mr Ryan asked to provide that information specifically this morning, although he might have been asked to go away and find that out. Either way, I don't have that information presently. But the point is that there is nothing sinister or peculiar about this.

The State Records people were obviously, one would assume, looking at the agencies which were the larger agencies. Now, ministerial offices are technically agencies for the purposes of the act—there is no question about that and I am not arguing about that. The only point I make is that if you were in the shoes of the State Records people, you would presumably make choices about where your inquiries would be most relevant to the community. All I can say is that, for whatever reason, the information we received this morning was that—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Whatever agencies were looked at—and I think there are 400 or so of them—ministerial offices, which would have been relatively small agencies in that context, were not included. But to suggest that their being included or not included was in any way a function of executive government giving direction is something for which there is absolutely no support.